Casey Anthony Trial
Because Brianna and I need a place to discuss it.
I'm finding both the legal maneuvering and the forensic testimony fascinating.
Of course, I am experts in both of these things because I watch Law and Order, CSI, and Bones.
What I do wonder is if there is anything on the duct tape that would indicate either drowning (presence of chlorine, anyone?), which is the defense's theory, or anything to show presence of chloroform, or human biological products (vomit, spit, whatever) that prove that the duct tape was over the mouth or nose of a living child.
My own theory of the case is that Casey wanted to party and that she got into the habit of drugging Caylee and leaving her somewhere (including in the trunk of the car) while she did so. Given the Orlando heat, decomposition could have been accelerated, and I would even suspect that she left the trash bag in the car in hopes that the stench would be traced to that rather than toting around a dead child.
I found the "daddy molested me and forced me not to report that my baby drowned accidentally" competely freakish.
Even the baddest of ex-cops would report an accidental drowning, and know that nobody would be charged in such an instance.
Oh, and Casey lies.
Like a cheap rug.
That is an interesting theory re: Casey drugged Caylee so she could party. And, giving major props to your credentials (TeeVee and otherwise) I think that wanting to party is just too...normal and banal a reason for Casey to do anything. 99.9% of kids her age want to party. Casey's pathology goes so much deeper IMHO. And I'm looking at Cindy here. That woman has major, major issues.
I assume you've seen Caylee's bedroom? I mean, come ON. I love my kids, too, but they never, ever had shit the way Caylee had shit. The entire home was a Barbie Dream Castle and Casey hadn't been pulling in a paycheck for what, two years? She pretended to go to work at Universal for TWO years???? That, my friend, is dedication to a lie. I don't think I could fake anything for two years. She got up, dressed, pretended to go to work...and had zero money? How'd she do that? How did she pay to party? What did Cindy and George think she was doing with her (nonexsistant) paychecks? She certainly couldn't have been buying all that shit for Caylee.
And did Cindy and Geo. know what the defense was going to do - say Geo. molested Casey? I find that hard to swallow - that they would be okay with that and Geo. has denied it.
Casey is a spooky psychopath but Cindy is right there behind her. And we still don't know who Caylee's father was. I heard 7 men have been tested. Does Casey know who the father is and just can't say?
And it looks like Cindy and George would've taken care of and loved Caylee in the event that Casey just up and walked out of her life and ran away. I mean, if Casey really wanted to be shed of the little girl, she could've just left. What was keeping her there in Cindy's home? Casey could've shacked up with any number of willing men...sugar daddied her way out. She would've known Caylee would be well taken care of. Why not just leave? Coz she wanted to hurt Cindy. She has major hatred for Cindy. George is just a pawn in this entire game. It's between Casey and her mom.
Time for the Wood chipper again ,
Feet first this time
I just had Doctor Drew on as background while I was searching and he said something really interesting about Zanny the Nanny that hadn't occurred to me, but is close to something that I'd been guessing about ... that Casey was drugging the kid, stashing her somewhere, and going to party.
It's maybe not Zanny. It's Xanny.
Xanax.
How 'bout that shit ...
Time for the Wood chipper again ,
Feet first this time
I'll pass on the wood chipper, my man. Maybe you could say "head last" or something?
I was hoping for a more peaceful exit, you know quietly in my sleep, like Grandpa, not all hysterical and shrieking like the passengers in his car.
j/k have to agree; it couldn't be slow enough for that broad.
I just had Doctor Drew on as background while I was searching and he said something really interesting about Zanny the Nanny that hadn't occurred to me, but is close to something that I'd been guessing about ... that Casey was drugging the kid, stashing her somewhere, and going to party.
It's maybe not Zanny. It's Xanny.
Xanax.
How 'bout that shit ...
You've been reading James Joyce again haven't you? You must have a little Irish in you.
In addition to the whiskey, yes, I do. Come by it natural-like.
Wow - great catch! Zanny the Nanny= Xanny the Nanny!
This case is getting weirder by the minute.
What are your thoughts here? Borderline or full blown psychopath?
Sociopath. I can find things to like about borderlines.
People are objects to her.
Sociopath. I can find things to like about borderlines.
People are objects to her.
Imagine how she'd treat them if they wore lipstick?
Sociopath. I can find things to like about borderlines.
People are objects to her.
yeah, I get the feeling that Casey thinks the only real person, the only reality, is Casey.
Her lawyer was threatened with contempt today. Judge Perry no likey her attorney.
ETA: Like Casey's tatt? She got a tatt during the time Caylee was missing - Bella Vita. Beautiful Life.
According to testimony from the tattoo artist, Casey was cheerful, happy, bought pizza for everyone in the tattoo shop, and told the tattoo artist all about her daughter, promising to bring her by to meet the guy.
One eesy-weensy problem ... Caylee was already dead, according to the Defense's crazy accidental drowning, Grampa hid the body theory.
And as a little aside ... wrapping the body in her favorite Winnie-the-Pooh blanket is consistent with a family (usually parent) killing rather than a stranger killing. According to Law and Order and CSI, anyway.
According to testimony from the tattoo artist, Casey was cheerful, happy, bought pizza for everyone in the tattoo shop, and told the tattoo artist all about her daughter, promising to bring her by to meet the guy.
One eesy-weensy problem ... Caylee was already dead, according to the Defense's crazy accidental drowning, Grampa hid the body theory.
And as a little aside ... wrapping the body in her favorite Winnie-the-Pooh blanket is consistent with a family (usually parent) killing rather than a stranger killing. According to Law and Order and CSI, anyway.
Yeah, I remember reading that in a
book by an FBI profilerre favorite blanket--
why wouldn't a stranger use a favorite blanket? wouldn't the most readily available blankets be the favorite ones? assuming the wrapping happens where the kid sleeps.
keep in mind, I've seen enough Law and Order and CSI to fill the time between the end of dinner and bedtime about twice.
Sometimes, it's the way it is wrapped, or the fact it is wrapped at all. Haphazrd wrapping in a blanket versus wrapping in a comforting way, one is "who gives a shit?" and the other is pretending to yourself that you are not a bad mom.
And then there is the ever practical trash bag. I think you can read a little into how people consider their victims by the way they treat the remains.
Just what I've read.
Now Cindy is saying she did the searches for chloroform and some trauma/injuries searches on the home computer - even though her time card from work says she was at work during those times.
She says she "came home early," - ch'yeah.
I'm pretty sure Cindy perjured herself in a misguided attempt to save her daughter's life. Otherwise something would have been said about this earlier in the evolution of the case.
And such a bizarrely weak story, too ... "I searched for chlorophyll because I wondered why my little Yorkie might be sleepy."
Yeah. It's a puppy. That's what they do in between bursts of frantic energy.
Chlorophyll totally relates to searches on how to make chloroform and kill people with household objects and break necks. In between visits to facebook and myspace, which mom didn't use at all.
Fool.
I don't think Casey will get the death penalty.
I mean, she is a cute, petite, big-breasted chicka.
cf Amanda Knox. It's like she got hit with Casey's shit hammer, AK is so obviously not guilty.
I don't think AK is guilty, either.
but Casey sooooooo is.
The last cutie-pie to be put to death was Karla Faye Tucker and she was in Texas, ffs, AND "W" was gov. so, she was purty much out of luck there.
Really?
I have no problem with Foxy Knoxy's conviction.
Things about her testomony were seriously screwy.
I have to admit, I just have a "gut" feeling that Knoxy is not guilty.
That feeling, and the obvious bumbling of the Italian police/detectives.
You can see it on her face. She's innocent.
No real surprise ... Casey isn't testifying.
Jose Baez, though, has to be the dumbest attorney on the face of the Earth ... he spent most of this morning have Lee, Cindy, and George testify that it was pretty common practice in the family to wrap their pets in plastic with a favorite blanket or toy, tape up the bag and bury them.
Rather than making a broad suggestion that one of the other family members did this with Caylee, he pretty much walked into his own trap, showing that from the time she was a toddler, this is how Casey knows that a beloved pet is to be interred.
And kudos to Jeff Ashton, the prosecutor ... "Mrs. Anthony, your buried your pets, correct? You never threw any of them into a swamp, did you?"
And the Defense just rested.
Some dumbass in the gallery shot a bird at the Prosecutor.
The judge is wacking his peepee.
6 days in jail, $400 fine, about $220 in court costs, 6 months worth of installments.
Heh. I haven't been following this trial closely, but I just Googled this trial and "contempt of court" to see details on this incident, and see that it's at least the 4th instance of contempt of court in this one trial. What a 3 ring circus.
Two of the contempt citations occurred during jury selection, I think ...
I am so freakin' wrapped up in this thing that I signed up for Twitter so I could get the Verdict notification.
Seriously.
So wolf, do you think she is going to get off?
Any bets on how long this jury is going to deliberate? I am betting at least 2 or 3 weeks because nothing seems cut and dry.
convention wisdom, according to In Session is quick jury return is likely for a guilty verdict. Vinnie Politan, one of their commentators, is predicting 13 hours.
I'm thinking around 5.
And I think she's guilty ... both initial impression and presentation of the evidence.
So, this is what happened? Prosecution presented facts that show Casey killed her daughter. Why she did it. And why it was premeditated.
Defense tried to claim this was due to sexual molestation as a child. Provided no evidence for those claims. So the judge said that defense could not be considered.
Defense's only hope is to have created doubt in the prosecution's logic. But no smoking gun facts were presented.
Doing everything I can to avoid this trial (just like OJ Simpson's), is that the entire relevant 6 weeks of testimony?
There were a lot more words involved, but pretty much.
The jury is deliberating, Judge Perry just sent them back to the hotel for the night, they start again 0830 tomorrow.
The closing arguments were pretty well done ... lots of facts on the Prosecution's side, a lot of attempts at eliciting emotion on the Defense's.
I spent yesterday with a woman who lives on Orlando. She is totally Casey Anthonyed out. Her children went to the school that's down the street from the body dump site. She (and apparently most of the people that she knows) are all of the opinion that Casey killed the kid and would prefer that she have a long life of suffering in prison rather than the death penalty.
She told a story about being in the Publix one day and seeing some folks she thought she knew, but she couldn't figure out from where ... she finally realized they were George and Cindy Anthony.
The verdict is in ... at 2:15!
WTF???????????????????????????????
Casey Anthony found not guilty of first degree murder.
I'm not the jury, I didn't even watch the trial. I'm not even her, so I don't know if justice was done or not...but I don't think anyone was expecting this outcome.
Here's what MIGHT have happened on any of the charges:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-what-shes-facing-if-jury-finds-her-guilty/well that was a let down.
but I don't think anyone was expecting this outcome.
OJ?
Well, we don't know, do we?
I don't know. Some of y'all might.
That verdict to me sounds like a travesty of justice.
But I have to be as sanguine as Infi and say I wasn't there and I wasn't on the Jury.
Still.
Wow.
Maybe I'll even bury the dead kid I have now I know it's safe.
(too soon?)
That verdict to me sounds like a travesty of justice.
But I have to be as sanguine as Infi and say I wasn't there and I wasn't on the Jury.
Still.
Wow.
Maybe I'll even bury the dead kid I have now I know it's safe.
(too soon?)
Never too soon for dark humor.
I just hate how everyone "knows" all about whether people are guilty or not. Certainly I believe there is some educated guessing going on; some people have really followed this case.
But, even with OJ, though every part of my being thought he was guilty too, I couldn't come out and shout "that guilty motherfucker deserved to DIE." I couldn't be sure he was the monster he seemed to be.
Because I just don't know. So the loudmouthing you know will result from certain factions of people, ready with pitchforks, will get on my nerves. Not to say no one is allowed to those opinions either...a lot of people know more about it than I do.
But say, just for a second, that she really wasn't (by the letter of the law and as shown by her defense) guilty? This is why we have courtrooms, right?
Because I just don't know. So the loudmouthing you know will result from certain factions of people, ready with woodchippers, will get on my nerves. Not to say no one is allowed to those opinions either...a lot of people know more about it than I do.
FTFY
;)
On one hand I think everyone is evil and on the other hand I think no one is ever guilty.
:lol:
Prosecution presented facts of how and why.
Defense presented excuses and diversions.
Another murderer goes free - IMO.
and yeh - zippy's wood chipper would probably get a LOT of use if it were up to me. Thankfully, it isn't.
Prosecution presented facts of how and why.
Defense presented excuses and diversions.
Another murderer goes free - IMO.
No offense, but that's not a particularly surprising opinion from you. In fact, it's expected.
Did you get to see most of the trial? I thought it would be slam dunk and she would be found guilty and I never ended up watching even daily recaps.
Now I wish I had!
It just seems so odd to me.
A dead child, a mother lying and partying for a whole month after her death, not even contacting the authorities.
I don't give much credance to the smell of decomposition, that's opinion.
But if a parent does not report either the accidental death (which her defence suggested) or kidnapping of a child, surely they should be answerable in law?
I'm not saying she should be put to death.
I'm saying if she walks away with time served there are questions to be answered.
search for "Casey" on openbook. A lot of people care a lot.
What is openbook?
eta: I searched it but it isn't doing anything.
No offense, but that's not a particularly surprising opinion from you. In fact, it's expected.
Offended by your opinion? Hardly.
Did you get to see most of the trial?
I watched a good bit. Enough in my mind to see that this is what happens with the system as is. Guilty people go free.
Can someone explain to me the benefit of the 5th amendment? Obviously I understand what it does, but why is it a good thing? Why shouldn't we be able to make people take the stand and give answers to questions they don't want to answer?
@ c: So, it's good that you can't wish everyone into the cornfield, right, and that we have a legal system...otherwise you'd go broke buying pitchforks and rope.
But do tell, what is better than "as is"?
Moi?
OK, I'll shut up 'cause YOU said so. ;)
As to the case: she didn't even get child abuse charges. Just the misleading the cops or whatever.
Though we all know there are all kinds of child abuse (some of it so sly that it slips right under almost everyone's radar) I do not know: were there allegations of any former abuse or neglect in which Casey was implicated?
I'll take the 5th. :)
@ IM - You are reading into my comment as usual regarding "as is"
I'll drink a fifth!
Sigh, I wasn't reading anything into anything. You said that "as is" the system lets murderers go free. Seems to me you think things should change.
Maybe getting rid of the 5th amendment? Or chucking the whole constitution, because we know better (not reading into what you said, reading into what Clod said.) I can do some reading into action. But it's a serious question if you, or you, could look beyond your initial reaction to most things I say and realize that.
I'm kind of the dumb man's genius.
But I don't need to get my ass kicked again for your sake, so I'll let this soon to be circular maddening argument go. ;)
I'll drink a fifth!
You said that "as is" the system lets murderers go free. Seems to me you think things should change.
Bzzzzzzzzzttt therein lies the problem.
The system is designed so that guilty people go free in exchange for the innocent being prosecuted (as much as possible) - IMO.
Oh and just for fun - the polls are starting ...
Was Justice Served in the Casey Anthony Trial?
No - Casey clearly killed Caylee and has gotten away with it.
80.12%
Yes - The prosecution didn't prove that Casey committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
19.88%Peasants. Pitchforks. Who cares, the bottom line being that watching TV or looking at websites doesn't really qualify any percent of people to know anything.
Maybe getting rid of the 5th amendment? Or chucking the whole constitution, because we know better (not reading into what you said, reading into what Clod said.)
We do chuck parts of it on a relatively regular basis. The 5th amendment actually
being an amendment, chucking it would be a return to the original, more pure constitution, yes?
I'm sure there must be some legitimate reason for it, just like there are reasons for the electoral college system even though on the surface it looks pretty silly. I just can't think of any of those reasons.
We do chuck parts of it on a relatively regular basis. The 5th amendment actually being an amendment, chucking it would be a return to the original, more pure constitution, yes?
I'm sure there must be some legitimate reason for it, just like there are reasons for the electoral college system even though on the surface it looks pretty silly. I just can't think of any of those reasons.
I can't argue with that. :)
See, as a Brit it weirds me out that it horrifies you to make people answer questions, but it's okay to kill them.
Don't get me wrong, defendents can refuse to take the stand here, it's just that once they do they cannot refuse to answer without being in contempt of court.
Those who have strong cases against them or are unhinged in some way are strongly suggested not to do so by their solicitors.
Oh and I'm NOT being superior - we had a trial just last week where an already convicted murderer's defence (about another case with the same hallmarks) was allowed to bring up truly horrible suggestions about the dead girl's parents, despite there never being a suggestion from the Police that they were suspected.
ETA - looks like one of our gutter press employed a private detective who hacked the same teen's mobile phone for messages, and even DELETED them so more could fit in the voicemail. While she was still missing. It's headline news here, even if not relevant to this case. So no moral highground from me I promise.
See, as a Brit it weirds me out that it horrifies you to make people answer questions, but it's okay to kill them.
Don't get me wrong, defendents can refuse to testify here - and those who have strong cases against them or are unhinged in some way are strongly suggested not to do so by their solicitors.
Oh and I'm NOT being superior - we had a trial just last week where an already convicted murderer's defence (about another case with the same hallmarks) was allowed to bring up truly horrible suggestions about the dead girl's parents, despite there never being a suggestion from the Police that they were suspected.
ETA - looks like one of our gutter press employed a private detective who hacked the teen's mobile phone for messages, and even DELETED them so more could fit in the voicemail. While she was still missing. It's headline news here, even if not relevant to this case. So no moral highground from me I promise.
I read about that earlier. That's creepy. Her parents thought it indicated she was alive, didn't they? :(
I haven't followed this case, but one thing I do know is that the jury has different information than the information the public has. That's the way it always is, and that's where the disconnect comes from when a decision seems crazy.
Sometimes, though, the public also has information the jury didn't have, because the judge didn't allow it for one reason or another. I remember an interview with 2 of the OJ jurors, and the host was showing them all this stuff that they hadn't been allowed to see. They were acting like it would have made a difference in their verdict, although I don't believe it would have after all.
Shawnee - yes.
So did the police.
The trial was awful enough for her parents, without this shit.
All I can hope is that this helps curtail some of the dirty practices of the red-tops.
There is a big campaign to boycott the News of the World.
Ford have already withdrawn as an advertiser and more will follow.
Although a part of me thinks moral outrage is ironic if you take this gutter-wipe seriously - they try to stir it up every week.
And this comes on the back of many other "scandals". All of which were originally denied and then settled out of court. And yet this time we're asked to believe them - no-one anywhere ever knew about this guv'nor! But the Private Detective who did it is already in prison so let's just all shush up about it, right?
No. You behave despicably, you might get away with it. You fulminate about other people breaking laws, you might just escape hypocrisy claims. You mess with a case about a schoolgirl, abducted and murdered on her way home from school with a huge hunt on for her body for months? Sorry chaps - there's going to have to be a cull.
Can someone explain to me the benefit of the 5th amendment? Obviously I understand what it does, but why is it a good thing? Why shouldn't we be able to make people take the stand and give answers to questions they don't want to answer?
Here's
Wikipedia. It's Oliver Cromwell's fault.
Okay, but that's not reasonable in this day and age, IMHO. We don't torture confessions out of people anymore--and if you want to point to occasional police abuses to say we do, then I'd say obviously pleading the 5th didn't help them in those cases. It's an out-dated amendment.
All of the amendments were written with 18th century issues in mind, and have to be interpreted by each generation with regard to the issues of the day.
The 5th was relevant up through McCarthyism, at the very least, and I don't think that future witch hunts are out of the question - there is an effort to rehabilitate McCarthy's reputation. Just because McCarthy often managed to work around, and sometimes ignored the 5th doesn't mean its worthless.
We don't torture confessions Spanish-Inquisition-style anymore, but police routinely go as far as they can under the 5th amendment, so I certainly wouldn't want to make "as far as they can" to be further.
"Pleading the fifth" is just the "right to remain silent" when actually in court, rather than during police interrogation.
Also, would we really want to open every defendant to perjury charges if the jury doesn't believe their alibi? From wikipedia again:
The Supreme Court has held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."
Sometimes, though, the public also has information the jury didn't have, because the judge didn't allow it for one reason or another.
Yeah. That's what I'm talking about mostly. The public almost always has information the jury doesn't have.
The public almost always has information the jury doesn't have.
My jury experience says we were denied even basic information such as written text.
The judge's charge required us to meet seven points. But we were not permitted to have the judge's charge in writing in the room. Everything in the room came only from memory. So we literally invented the judge's charge. Due to no written transcripts and nothing else in writing, then anyone with imagination would invent testimony. Those who know only by having reasons why were silenced.
In a responsible world, all written testimony and even the judge's charge is in that room. IOW a jury does not have information that others have - my experience. Therefore a jury makes decisions based upon emotions; not based in facts and numbers.
Just like in the OJ Simpson trial, facts and numbers were completely ignored. A jury that was grasping facts and numbers had to be in that room far longer than 10 hours because all testimony, in a trial based in so much science, must be reread.
Hmmm, I think they made a decision based NOT on emotion. Emotional opinion is SHE WAS GUILTY AND SHOULD BE HANGED. Just look around at the unwashed masses, via twitter or facebook or in the streets or at the bar...legal experts, all.
The real issue is the prosecution went too far in charges pursued without any real evidence to back it up. Hearsay is not evidence. They had very, very, little to offer.
Beyond a reasonable doubt, remember. They didn't do their job, if she was, in fact, guilty.
ps JUST LIKE OJ JUST LIKE OJ. Hardly just like OJ. What a silly already overused comparison.
I read a repost on CNN of twitter comments (because I don't EVEN get the whole twitter thing, what's with the 'at' sign or the pound sign or whatever sign that precedes 'tweets'? But I digress.) It was about our justice system being based on "it's better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent person." This is why the prosecutors need to do a good job and NOT rely on the emotional opinions of the masses, thinking the jury can't rise above emotional opinion.
Doesn't anyone else wonder who the father of this child was and think maybe it was Dad/grandpa? And maybe they covered it up because when she died they knew they would be found out to be having an incestuous relationship because of the testing that could be done during an autopsy?? :(
Well I wonder NOW!
Eeeeks. Interesting theory.
My jury experience says we were denied even basic information such as written text.
Yeah. That's the way it is, and I think it's crazy. But my understanding is that they don't want the jury to have all the written testimony in front of them because they could wind up getting bogged down on trivial matters that have no bearing on the important issues of the case.
I think that both lawyers should be able to give the jury a ten page outline of their arguments with imbedded quotations of relevant testimony and exhibits. An executive summary of each side's position. That would give the jury some information they can refer to and would also keep them focused on the issues each side thinks is important.
I was wondering that too, Nirvana. Where's the dad? Do they even know who Dad is? Yeah, who the hell knows.
The whole thing is a big show. I am surprised she wasn't even convicted of child abuse. I thought there was enough evidence to support even that. But like so many people mentioned already, the jury gets limited information.
they don't want the jury to have all the written testimony in front of them
because they could wind up getting bogged down on the important issues of the case.
FTFY ;)
well that was a let down.
Many agree, but we have to let the system work. Some guilty go free, hopefully we can minimize those innocent that serve time unjustly. Far from perfect, but I wouldn't change it for any other place at the moment.
Doesn't anyone else wonder who the father of this child was and think maybe it was Dad/grandpa? And maybe they covered it up because when she died they knew they would be found out to be having an incestuous relationship because of the testing that could be done during an autopsy?? :(
DNA testing was done and both George (dad) and Lee (brother) were excluded as possible fathers.
Wouldn't that be a heck of a Maury show ...
HLN was talking about whether or not the biological father, if ever identified, could pursue a wrongful death civil suit against Casey. Heck, even Casey may not know who he is.
She has already been served by Zenaida Gonzalez' attorney for defamation of character.
My prediction: Casey Anthony will be dead within two years, either suicide or drug overdose. Is it too late to add her to my celebrity death pool?
I think she may have to go into some type of witness protection program of security, they have already stationed extra cops outside of her house.
ps JUST LIKE OJ JUST LIKE OJ. Hardly just like OJ. What a silly already overused comparison.
Bullshit. You are so high on drugs. It was EXACTLY like OJ.
OJ: Running back for the Buffalo Bills, portrayed a navy SEAL, African American
CA: Running back for the Buffalo Bills, portrayed a navy SEAL, African American
What more evidence do you need? Next, you're gonna start in on the whole six million lies thing, aren't you?
If the trash bag don't fit (over Casey's head), you must acquit
Thanks foot3. I guffawed.
From FailBlog:
[ATTACH]32955[/ATTACH]
Ooowwwwwwch. :lol:
Many agree, but we have to let the system work. Some guilty go free, hopefully we can minimize those innocent that serve time unjustly. Far from perfect, but I wouldn't change it for any other place at the moment.
Well said, very well said.Hmmm, I think they made a decision based NOT on emotion. Emotional opinion is SHE WAS GUILTY AND SHOULD BE HANGED. Just look around at the unwashed masses, via twitter or facebook or in the streets or at the bar...legal experts, all.
The real issue is the prosecution went too far in charges pursued without any real evidence to back it up. Hearsay is not evidence. They had very, very, little to offer.
Beyond a reasonable doubt, remember. They didn't do their job, if she was, in fact, guilty.
ps JUST LIKE OJ JUST LIKE OJ. Hardly just like OJ. What a silly already overused comparison.
I read a repost on CNN of twitter comments (because I don't EVEN get the whole twitter thing, what's with the 'at' sign or the pound sign or whatever sign that precedes 'tweets'? But I digress.) It was about our justice system being based on "it's better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent person." This is why the prosecutors need to do a good job and NOT rely on the emotional opinions of the masses, thinking the jury can't rise above emotional opinion.
Many agree, but we have to let the system work. Some guilty go free, hopefully we can minimize those innocent that serve time unjustly. Far from perfect, but I wouldn't change it for any other place at the moment.
Well said, very well said.
You're a damn genius. :D
Looking forward to Casey Anthony's non-fiction book that will be titled, "The Perfect Murder - How I did It". Even OJ could not use that title.
Sounds like a made for Lifetime movie.
I'll go for "I Lost An Angel" as the auto (ghost written) biography.
Where Casey is the real victim, rather than her daughter, because Casey has to live with the tragedy. And with other people's opinions of her.
And evidence re her abusive childhood is conveniently dropped because it was a stranger murder.
With a couple of fill-in chapters about JonBenet and the Marie-Celeste to pad it out.
I think Sundae nailed it. Add in a chapter on that Megan kid, and it's a best seller.
Hmmm, I think they made a decision based NOT on emotion. Emotional opinion is SHE WAS GUILTY AND SHOULD BE HANGED. Just look around at the unwashed masses, via twitter or facebook or in the streets or at the bar...legal experts, all.
The real issue is the prosecution went too far in charges pursued without any real evidence to back it up. Hearsay is not evidence. They had very, very, little to offer.
Beyond a reasonable doubt, remember. They didn't do their job, if she was, in fact, guilty.
ps JUST LIKE OJ JUST LIKE OJ. Hardly just like OJ. What a silly already overused comparison.
I read a repost on CNN of twitter comments (because I don't EVEN get the whole twitter thing, what's with the 'at' sign or the pound sign or whatever sign that precedes 'tweets'? But I digress.) It was about our justice system being based on "it's better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent person." This is why the prosecutors need to do a good job and NOT rely on the emotional opinions of the masses, thinking the jury can't rise above emotional opinion.
tldr
Here you go:
http://www.time4learning.com/reading-programs.shtml
You'll be reading like the big boys in no time.
I don't know much about this, but I feel strongly that there is a definitely probable possibility that she might not be not guilty, or guilty for that matter, although we can't exclude the possibility of the former superceding the latter--or vice versa!
I don't know much about this, but I feel strongly that there is a definitely probable possibility that she might not be not guilty, or guilty for that matter, although we can't exclude the possibility of the former superceding the latter--or vice versa!
Right on!
I really didn't follow this story much at all. Did she ever give any explanation of why she never reported her daughter missing?
I don't know much about this, but I feel strongly that there is a definitely probable possibility that she might not be not guilty, or guilty for that matter, although we can't exclude the possibility of the former superceding the latter--or vice versa!
HOF!
So I heard today that there was a pro bono expert analysing social media (tweets specifically) during the trial to get a feeling for what the public felt about the prosecutions case as they were putting it on. They shared this info with the defense who then tailored their strategy to what they believed would most dramatically affect the jury.
Ie: if a lot of tweets said the public didn't like the father and felt he was hiding something, the defense would then create doubt around the father and a conspiracy of silence involving him.
Wanna bet judges start ordering tweeting out of their courtrooms?
Also, I've read that there are allegations of witness tampering, which are being investigated by the police. No idea who or what, however.
Wanna bet judges start ordering tweeting out of their courtrooms?
They can and usually do ban cell phones in the courthouse. The tweets would have been out in the real world by people watching it on TV. There's nothing the judge can do about that.
Experts telling lawyers how to tug on the heartstrings of the jury is a long and pretty advanced tradition. It's even what Dr. Phil did before he was discovered by Oprah and got his own TV show.
Edit: What surprises me is that somebody did it pro bono. They must have been fairly new to the field and were trying to build up their resume.
Apparently it's the first time the tactic has been used by analyzing tweets during the actual proceedings.
Tweaking defenseI suppose it's because this one was big enough that it made it onto twitter's radar.